Latest Blog Entry

Excelsior AD Club newsletter March 2019 We have had so much happen in the last month, and exciting things happening in the run up to Easter, it is best to keep them all in one place. So here you go. 6 members complete their Athletic Development Coaching Course Archie, Daisy, Flora, Jakin, Rebecca and Stephanie […]

User login

Bad Science

May 14, 2016 2:01 pm

High pulls vs cleans

Triple extension in the high pulls

I was asked on Tuesday by an athlete who is quite new to weight lifting why I would teach cleans which are quite complex, if high pulls also work the triple extension.
The answer is that I have got a lot of time with this athlete, so can afford to work on his technique without sacrificing his work that will lead to strength and power development. The clean will then enable him to perform the jerks without using a rack.

But, the question is an excellent one, and should be asked by Coaches before they do any exercise or series of techniques, instead of doing something because everyone else is doing it.

Some National Governing Bodies specifically want cleans coached – why? If time is limited, then

dumbbell cleans

jump squats

wave squats

high pulls

are all useful alternatives for developing power.

Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column in The Guardian is a good read and is an example of how to examine wild claims and pseudo science. This type of objectivity is uncommon in a lot of Coaching practice.

It is especially interesting to read how the over complication of diet has led to a new brand of celebrity nutritionists who are being discredited due to their lack of scientific underpinning.

I keep telling coaches and athletes that they should look at what they are trying to achieve, and find tools that do that job most efficiently.

However, many people become attached to the “magic exercise” or “magic food” and then reverse engineer its usefulness to match the aims.

Client Testimonials

College of St Mark and St John

James is an excellent and experienced Strength and Conditioning Coach. He is able to draw on these experiences to adapt and meet each client’s specific needs. James is known for his engaging and dynamic style that has proved effective in producing results. Having worked with James, he is both organized and efficient. He also is an evidence based practitioner happy to engage in debate and take on new ideas. James rightly demands high standards and a good work ethic which reflects his own contribution to each situation